Page images

been ædiles, but brings forward as much more remarkable those cases where a man had become consul without having previously been tribunus plebis, or quæstor, or even tribunus militum."

That the common and received opinion (said to be based on the dates in Cicero's life) that the years fixed in the Lex Villia are the 31st, 37th, 40th, and 43rd of a man's life, in stating which it is left undecided whether such year be complete or commenced, whether it be the year of tenure, or of canvassing; that this opinion, I say, rests on a weak foundation, I trust I have proved above. I conceive that at the time of the Republic,

The age requisite for the Quæstorship was 30 years

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

Here I would apply the well-known juridical canon of later times, "annus cœptus pro pleno habetur," to the time of canvassing alone, so that a man could canvass for the consulate, after the completion of his 41st year, and enter on his office shortly before, or immediately after, the completion of the 42nd year.

The time assigned for the ætas consularis in Cic. Phil. v. 17, tallies exactly with that above given. "Macedo Alexander nonne tertio et vicesimo mortem obiit? quæ est ætas nostris legibus decem minor quam consularis." Alexander died at the age of 32 years and two months, so that the commencement of the 43rd year was sufficient for the tenure of the consular office. Cicero, however, was consul "anno ætatis XLIV, as he had not been quæstor till ann. ætat. XXXII.

[ocr errors]

There are, too, stronger reasons for taking the 30th year for the quæstorship than the 31st, the former being made use of elsewhere under similar circumstances as the statutable year. So for example, in the Lex Servilia, the eligibility to serve among the "CDL viri" was restricted to the 30th years. In

L. VIII. De Muneribus et Honoribus (Dig. 50, tit. 4): Annus autem cœptus pro pleno habetur; hoc enim in honoribus favoris causa constitutum est, ut

pro plenis inchoatos accipiamus.

5 Monum. Legg. ed. Haubold. pp. 33 -35; Brisson. de Form. 11. 24.

the Tabula Heracleensis the 30th year is expressly fixed as the statutable year for holding state offices in the Municipia, -"qui minor annis xxx est, erit, ne quis eorum in municipio, coloniâ, præfecturâ duumviratum, quatuorviratum, neve quem alium magistratum, neve petito, neve gerito"."

These restrictions among the Municipia are doubtless copied from the laws at Rome, and hence we may the rather be justified in quoting here the statute projected by the Prætor C Claudius, for the Halesini, "ne quis minor xxx annis natus senator cooptaretur" (Cic. in Verr. Acc. lib. II. 49, 122), and the restriction introduced among the Bithynians by the Lex Pompeia, "ne quis capiat magistratum, neve sit in senatu, minor xxx annorum" (Plin. Ep. x. 83); inasmuch as since the time of Augustus, when the "leges annales" were altered at Rome, these statutes also underwent a change in the provinces. (Plin. l. c.)

The exceptions which frequently present themselves as early as the time of the Republic, by which certain individuals held offices before the statutable age 7, must not be considered as arbitrary exemptions, but were, for the most part founded on the enactment itself. Military distinction and services allowed men to become candidates at an earlier age. Cic. Acad. 11. 1: "Lucullus quæstor permultos annos admirabili quadam laude præfuit, deinde absens factus ædilis, continuo prætor, licebat enim celerius præmio legis." Cic. Phil. xi. 5: (Bestia) "alter Cæsar Vopiscus ille, qui ex ædilitate consulatum petit, solvatur legibus, quanquam leges eum non tenent, propter eximiam, credo, dignitatem." Furnius, too, appealed to his services when he became candidate for the prætorship (Cic. ad Fam. x. 25) without having been ædile.

In Appian (B. Civ. 1. 101) Ofella declines complying with the law enacted anew by Sulla (στρατηγεῖν ἀπεῖπε πρὶν ταμιεῦσαι καὶ ὑπατεύειν πρὶν στρατηγῆσαι), and wishes to be made consul διὰ τὸ μέγεθος τῶν εἰργασμένων κατὰ παλαιὸν ἔθος, without having previously been quæstor and prætor. On the other hand, though it is true that Antonius, who was quæstor at the same time as Cicero (pro Sull. vi. 18), was, notwithstanding,

• Haubold. Monumen. Legg. p. 119. 7 Garatoni, ad Phil. v. 17; Drackenb.

ad Liv. 25, 2; Val. Max. viii. 15; Manutius, de Legg.

nominated consul two years before him, still this must only be considered as an anomaly that had crept in through the intrigues of Catiline's party, and which in fact brought upon him a charge "de ambitu," and a sentence of condemnation. The distinction paid to Cato on account of services of no ordinary kind (Val. Max. v. i. 14; Plut. Cat. 39)-"ut prætura extra ordinem ei daretur," must be referred, not to his "ætas," as Dio Cassius (XXXIX. 23) supposes-σrparnyíav avтý dolйνaι καίπερ μηδέπω προσήκουσαν, but, as Manutius endeavours to prove, to the nature of the selection: "campestrem experiri temeritatem quam curiæ beneficio uti satius duxit," says Val. Max. l. c.

Before we pass on to the time of the emperors, we must answer a question which has been frequently mooted, namely, whether there existed a similar legal restriction previous to the "Lex Villia" (A. U. C. 574). That no "lex annalis" was in force in the earlier times is expressly stated by Tacitus (Annal. xi. 22) and Cicero (Phil. v. 17). Yet it has been repeatedly asserted that the "Lex Villia" was not the first. Thus a trace of another lex annalis, whose priority indeed was not positively affirmed, as its date was unknown, was found in Cicero de Orat. 11. 64, 261, " Ut olim, Rusca quum legem ferret annalem, dissuasor M. Servilius, dic mihi, inquit, M. Pinari, si contra te dixero, mihi male dicturus es?" But in Livy (XL. 18) we find mention made of a prætor of the year 573, M. Pinarius Posca (other Codd. have Pusca). What readier solution can be given than that the M. Pinarius Rusca of Cicero is one and the same person as the M. Pinarius Pusca (read Rusca) of Livy. The opponent, too, of Rusca above mentioned, M. Servilius, is to be found in Livy (xL. 27) as a military tribune ann. 574. It would appear, then, that this Rusca took an active part in the debates on the Lex Villia, and came forward as its "suasor." If, however, we choose to lay stress on the expression of Cicero, "quum legem ferret annalem," we might then, perhaps, be at liberty to assume that in Liv. XL. 44, "eo anno rogatio primum lata est," must be so understood that by the "primum lata est," reference be made to another bringing in of the same bill by Rusca during the ensuing year. Compare Liv. x. 9, " tertio ea (lex Valeria) tum lata est."

The main passage, however, to which appeal is made is Liv. xxv. 2. "Huic (P. Scipioni Africano) petenti ædilitatem quum

obsisterent tribuni plebis, negantes rationem ejus habendam esse, quod nondum ad petendum legitima ætas esset, si me, inquit, omnes Quirites ædilem facere volunt satis annorum habeo." If we could here take "legitimus" in the more extended signification in which it frequently occurs elsewhere, as, for example, in Pliny, so as not to mean "statutable,” but "fit," "proper," "suitable," we must not forget that Scipio was at that time hardly 22 years old, the difficulty would thus be removed.

Scipio's answer, too, agrees with this interpretation: "Satis annorum habeo si me Quirites ædilem facere volunt." In like manner when he says (Liv. xxxvIII. 51): "Ita si ab annis septendecim ad senectutem semper vos ætatem meam honoribus anteistis, ego vestros honores rebus gerendis præcessi," we must understand "ætas" to allude to Scipio's extreme youth, not to an age below the standard fixed by some statute.

It cannot, however, be denied that such a use of the word "legitimus," as it there stands, would be in every way censurable. To refer it, with Heineccius, to the year when Scipio attained his majority, is quite unwarrantable, as during the Republic no trace whatever can anywhere be found of the majority having any connection with the admission into the honores. That no conclusion can be drawn from this passage with respect to the fact itself of the existence of a lex annalis at that time, seems to me to be made clear from Polybius (x. 4, &c.), who, although he enlarges fully on the contest for the office and on Scipio's various arguments, yet throws out no hint of the existence of an adverse law. It only remains for us to assume that there is an anachronism in Livy 9. The same anachronism appears in Plutarch in a similar case; for in Livy (XXXII. 7), T. Quintius Flamininus becomes candidate for the consulate immediately after the quæstorship, when he was not yet 30 years old. (Plut. Flam. c. 2.) The tribunes oppose his

• Commentar. ad Legem Juliam et Papiam Poppaam, p. 203.

9 It appears to us that M. Wex has been fighting with a shadow. Why may not the words "legitima ætas" have reference to the law mentioned in a former part of this essay, by which it was enacted that no one should enter upon the lowest

civil office without having served for ten years, and if not to the lowest, a fortiori, not to a higher. Entering the army at 17, as was usual among the Romans, the competitor for civil offices must have been at least 27 years of age; but Scipio, we have seen, was only 22.-Note of Trans.

claims by the remark, "nobiles homines ædilitatem præturamque fastidire et media transcendendo summa imis continuare." The Senate, however, decided "qui honorem, quem sibi capere per leges liceret, in eo populo creandi quem velit potestatem fieri æquum esse." At that time, therefore, there was no lex annalis in force. Plutarch, notwithstanding, says (c. 2), that the tribunes declared themselves hostile to the claim, inasmuch as he παρὰ τοὺς νόμους εἰσβιάζεσθαι εἰς τὴν μεγίστην ἀρχήν.

The law underwent great alterations after the time of Augustus. According to Dio Cass. LII. 20, siç dè Tó σvvédpiov (καταλέγεσθαι χρή) πεντε-και-εικοσι-έτεις ; ταμιεύσαντές τε καὶ ἀγορανομήσαντες ἢ δημαρχήσαντες στρατηγείτωσαν τριακοντούTai yɛvóμɛvoi, persons entered upon the quæstorship, and into the Senate at the age of 25, and the prætorship at 30. It is true that this restriction is represented in Dio Cassius merely as a proposition suggested to Augustus, as the basis of this fictitious conversation. Other proofs can be adduced to shew that such was really the case. It also appears to me that the new shape given to the statute, as far at least as regards the time of admission, was in every way analogous to that which it originally bore. In early times, campaigns of five years were required in order to become a military tribune, and of ten to become a quæstor. (Polyb. vi. 19.) Now Augustus allowed the sons of senators to assume the rank of tribune immediately on their entering the army (Suet. Octav. 38; Tib. c. 9; Tacit. Agric. c. 5); consequently the duration of their career was now five years, and they became qualified for the quæstorship in their 25th instead of in their 30th year.

As one of the main proofs of this statute, appeal is justly made to 1. 11. de Minoribus xxv Annis (Dig. 4, tit. 4): "Nec per liberos suos rem suam maturius a curatoribus recipiat quod enim legibus cavetur, ut singuli anni per singulos liberos, remittantur, ad honores pertinere Severus ait, non ad rem suam recipiendam." Lipsius remarks on this passage, "Quæ lex subtilius considerata adstruit hoc ævum;" he also says (in his Excurs. ad Tac. Annal. 111. 29), " Colligas idem non obscure ex 1. II. de Minoribus;" he probably means that if the 25th year had not been the year both of majority and of admission into civil offices, it would never have entered any one's head to extend those privileges which a person was entitled to on entering into civil offices, to the year in which he attained his

« PreviousContinue »